Some of the most prominent actors and trends in global politics today have absolutely no affiliation with any recognized nation-state. They often operate outside the jurisdiction of any one government and address issues beyond any one government’s control. Are these forces truly new forces, and, if so, what makes them such?

If it is agreed upon that there are new forces at work in world politics, how does one account for the emergence of those forces in terms of the classical idea of structure within the international system? Do these forces constitute a change in the structure of the system, and, if so, what is the effect of this change on the system as a whole? What are some of the methods scholars have developed for understanding this change, and what are the advantages or problems with these methods? If the structure of the nation-state system is altered, is the entire system doomed to fail? Is a one-world government in the works, or is the world of global politics eventually to be characterized by small, disparate groups who understand themselves not in terms of national identity but in terms of religious, cultural, ethnic, geograp

States are, one must admit, entities which necessarily act first upon economic and strategic motives. Human beings are another thing altogether and currently find themselves in a position to force states to hold one another accountable. Perhaps it begins only with the large states. But when a large state can be shamed for not intervening in a domestic conflict in some obscure state, the welfare of whose people has no bearing whatsoever on the constituency of a large state, and when, because of that shame, the large state in the future choose to interfere with the sovereignty of a smaller state, something is different. Something has changed.

The area of human rights movements, however, may very well be. While other arenas, such as the economic or military, have become so interwoven from state to state, the field of human rights still deals exclusively with the ability of a sovereign state to treat its citizens how it wishes, and, when compared to economic or military relations, a state’s human rights policies bear less if any impact on the welfare of other states. Many dismiss human-rights pressure as instruments used by powerful countries to affect desired goals. It is important, however, not to overlook the fact that the use of such pressure has become such a powerful tool.

A third point made by “new terrorism” theorists, and one that allows amateurs and ad hoc groups to act as they do, is the mobilization, via the communication revolution, of political, individual and financial support. “The declining cost and increasing ease of communicating over great distances means that terrorist groups have greatly increased the potential pool of resources they can draw on” (Tucker 2001).

The final phase of the model is characterized by a state which was once the target of international pressure regarding human rights but which has internalized those norms and complies with them not only because of international pressure but also because of the rule of domestic law and habitual practice (Risse 1999). The Philippines, Czechoslovakia and South Africa, among others, are good examples, all having reached a point at which one can be reasonably comfortable in claiming that universal human rights norms have been internalized and made part of habitual national practice and domestic law (Pace 2001, Risse 1999).

Phase four of the model is characterized by the intensification of domestic and international pressure. This increased pressure requires a state to either acknowledge the validity of international norms, although its behavior may still be in violation of those norms, or perhaps to even face a change in regime. (Risse 1999). The recent developments in Indonesia are a good example. In 1999, the country held its first real elections in four decades, electing Abdurrahman Wahid as its President. Wahid, who had emphasized human rights during his campaign, immediately disbanded the hated internal security organization Bakorstanas and questioned many high-ranking and formerly untouchable military officials for their roles in past military atrocities (HRW).

Some topics in this essay:
Political System, Middle East, South Africa, According Krasner, Legal Assistance, President Wahid, Tianenmen Square, Faction RAF, human rights, David Tucker, Giangicamo Feltrinelli, nation-state system, risse 1999, international system, terrorist organizations, global politics, international pressure, spiral model, tucker 2001, actors trends, structure nation-state system, international human rights, human rights norms, change international system, 2001 risse 1999,